Well, DL only flew the DC-10s at first (mid 70s), while waiting for the Tristars to be delivered. The 10s left pretty quick after the Tristars arrived. After the DL/WA merger (after '87), the ex-WA 10s also left pretty quickly after the merger.

The first 10s that DL had were sold to UA and then leased back to DL while waiting for the L-1011s.

BTW, I non-revved from ORD-ATL in January of '74.........down on a DC-10 and back on an L-1011 (or vice versa..can't remember).

[Edited 2012-12-29 09:34:30]

"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen

By that token, flying the 767 with the 330 or 300 is a bad idea, or flying the 737 and 320, or 777 and 340. For an airline to go bankrupt, you need more than just competing plane types. Airlines are merging into other plane types. It isn't the best cost management to have 20 DC10s and 5 L-1011s but it won't kill you by itself.

Delta's first foray with the DC-10 was as a backup plan in case the L-1011 program was scrapped (Rolls Royce almost going under in 1971 delayed their RB211 engines and at that point, it was too late in the design phase to swap engine manufacturers.). They leased them from UA and returned them once they started to get L-1011s. They acquired them again as part of the merger with Western and retired them within a few years, as the L-1011s were their widebody trijet of choice (until they got MD-11s).

BA's order for the L-1011 was made by BEA prior to the merger that created BA and the DC-10s came in via the merger with BCal. BA's charter subsidiary Caledonian (which was renamed from British Airtours) operated the L-1011 and DC-10 as they essentially passed them down to Caledonian's operations.

Eastern operated both because their L-1011s didn't have the range of other L-1011s variants and needed something with more range and got the DC-10s.

I think you would have to look at the chain of events that lead to having flown both types, either at the same time, or at different times.

It's not like an airline went from Douglas then to Lockheed and ordered both at the same time, to fly at the same time.

The only one that might come close would be Delta, and for them it was the same reason Pan American flew both the DC-8 and the B707 at the same time .... their first choice was coming later, and they had to order their second choice to remain competitive while waiting for their first choice. (Of course, in the case of Pan American, they found when flying both that their second choice was better suited to their operations.)

When BA took over the company in 1987, they also took over B.Cal's DC-10s which continued to be used on LGW long-haul routes until the late 1990s.

To keep the Caledonian name alive, BA reanmed their charter subsidiary British Airtours to Caledonian Airways, this also helped distance the company from the tarnished brand after the 1986 Manchester air disaster.

So Caledonian never flew the L1011, although the type did wear the Caledonian name it was a separate company. Interestingly from the mid-1990s Caledonian Airways did operate DC-10-30s alongside the TriStars, as they provided the ability to operate non-stop to to Florida, Western Canada and the Caribbean which the TriStar lacked. So the types were largely complimentary in Caledonian Airways ops.

British Airways ended up operating both types soley through the takeover of B.Cal, but in the end the DC-10-30 outlasted the TriStar. I think again the DC-10-30s range made it more useful than the TriStar, although once the 777s started to arrive the DC-10s days at BA were numbered.

Quoting Crosswind (Reply 9):British Airways ended up operating both types soley through the takeover of B.Cal, but in the end the DC-10-30 outlasted the TriStar. I think again the DC-10-30s range made it more useful than the TriStar, although once the 777s started to arrive the DC-10s days at BA were numbered.

The DC-10 was effectively operated by Caledonian Airways (KT) twice. The first time was under BA ownership when one aircraft carried KT colours and operated the BA flights to Nassau, Grand Cayman, San Juan and Tampa with a BA code. As these were leisure routes I think it suited BA to make use of the lower costs of KT. The aircraft was one of the ex-BCal DC-10s based at LGW.

As has been said, the KT TriStars came from British Airways/British Airtours and were used on high density charter flights within Europe. I was always surprised BA didn't move the TriStar 200s over to KT (Many were traded in with Boeing for 767-336ERs) to replace the TriStar 1s (many of which were upgraded to TriStar 50/100 standard).

Once KT was sold off, it added DC-10s of its own for use on long haul charter flights. It also operated other TriStars from Air Atlanta Iceland.

I've read in a couple of books about BA that the DC-10s hung on at LGW so long as BA was pleaseantly surprised by their capabilities. Yet this wasn't BA's first experience of operating the DC-10, as for a number of years it leased an Air New Zealand (TE) DC-10 to operate LAX-LHR (and that was also used on a LHR-BOS sector if I recall). There was also a big attempt by Douglas to get BA to purchase the DC-10 by proposing a RR RB211 powered version (that would have been the DC-10-50) but BA ultimately opted to go for the TriStar 500 for its long and thin requirements.

Now if BA had kept the BCal order for the MD-11 they would have joined that even more select club of carriers who had operated all three three-holer widebodies.

Quoting srbmod (Reply 6):Eastern operated both because their L-1011s didn't have the range of other L-1011s variants and needed something with more range and got the DC-10s.

IIRC, this was to operate the MIA-LGW route that EA was awarded.

As far as HA goes, the L10's were used for mainland services, as HA & AA were close buds during the day, HA started obtaining used DC-10's from AA to replace the aging L10's, if you'll remember the HA DC-10's were in the same metal finish as AA's birds. And HA has done pretty well for themselves with the DC-8's, DC-10's, L10's and now 767's and 330's.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 7):I got to fly on both the L1011 and DC-10 with Pan Am, great experience.

Pan Am only operated both types due to the merger with National which occurred after they'd ordered the 12 L-1011-500s. I flew on both and the L-1011s were best avoided, at least in Y class, as they had cramped 10-abreast charter-type seating, while the ex-National DC-10s were the more usual and more comfortable 9-abreast.

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):I remember these carriers flew both the DC10 and the L10 11. Some of them at the same time. Was that a wise decision because 4 of the 8 carriers are now bankrupt?

HA, PA, BA, EA, UA, TZ, BR (british caledonian), DL

Well, none of them actually really planned to operate both types.

DL was actually the only one to order both fresh from factory. They placed an early order for five aircraft as they feared that the L-1011s would not be available on time. When it became clear that the TriStars would be more or lees available on time, the aicraft were transferred to United. Later they got another bunch of DC-10s through the merger with Western. If you count a deal through a leasing company as an order as well, ANA would be the only other one (see below).

UA got their TriStars as a package deal with Pan Am when United acquired the rights for some of the routes the TriStars flew on.

PA and BA got their DC-10s through mergers with National and BCal respectively. Caledonian was formed out of BCal and BA's charter arm which used TriStars. The DC-10s had a better range and were used on routes the TriStar was not able to fly as Crosswind and FlyCaledonian have lined out.

HA and TZ replaced their TriStars with DC-10s at a time when both types were available for cheap prices on the second hand market, but the DC-10 was available in higher numbers, offered more range and had also some younger low-time frames on the market (TZ's DC-10s were among the last built).

EA got their DC-10 to operate transatlantic flights where their early-built TriStars lacked range. The offer to lease three former Alitalia birds was too good to let it pass.

By the way, AF, IB and GA have wet-leased TriStars as well while parallely operating DC-10s. AC operated the DC-10 through acquisition of CP (though the DC-10 was phased out before both airlines were merged into one operaion). ANA ordered DC-10-10s but switched to the TriStar before the order was finalized. The ANA birds went to Turkish Airlines.

Oh, forgot CO which was pretty close to operate TriStars in the late 1980s or early 1990s as well, but the deal fell through in the last minute.

Did you by any chance ever work for BCal / Caledonian? You've got their history spot on!

...British Caledonian never flew the L1011, only the DC-10...although the type did wear the Caledonian name it was a separate company...to keep the Caledonian name alive, BA renamed their charter subsidiary...Caledonian Airways...

For their new livery, Caledonian kept British Caledonian's "Golden Lion" insignia on the tailplane of their aircraft, but for some inexplicable reason the tip of the lion's tail - which had been turned "in" on British Caledonian livery - became turned "out" on Caledonian livery, something that can be seen in your photos!

...Caledonian did operate DC-10-30s alongside the TriStars, as they provided the ability to operate non-stop to to Florida, Western Canada and the Caribbean which the TriStar lacked...made it more useful than the TriStar...

True, and, in Caledonian, the DC10 also had a better serviceability record than the L1011, and I spent two happy years on loan to Caledonian, as a Captain on the DC10.

However, with 399 seats, the Caledonian L1011 did have the very useful ability to "collect and rescue" all the passengers from (just about) any other aircraft which had gone AOG, in one go, even if it did sometimes have to stop for refuelling on the way!

Happy New Year to all A-Netters ......... especially those who worked for "Yellow Dog" airways!!

Quoting longhauler (Reply 8):When BA took over the company in 1987, they also took over B.Cal's DC-10s which continued to be used on LGW long-haul routes until the late 1990s.

BA had operated DC-10 30s more than 10 years before their purchase of BCal.

In the mid 1970s BA had a problem with their LHR-LAX service. Their 707s were not competitive with the wide-bodies that PA and TW were using by then on that route. So BA were loosing share. Of course they had their 747s but they were too large to operate the route profitably. And their L1011s did not have sufficient range to serve LAX from LHR. So in May 1975 they initiated a 4-year agreement with NZ.

Under this agreement an NZ DC-10-30 operated AKL-HNL-LAX each day. On arrival at LAX instead of turning round and flying back to AKL it was transferred to BA. It was then flown LAX-LHR-LAX on behalf of BA with both BA flight and cabin crews. On its return to LAX it was transferred back to NZ for the return flight to HNL and AKL. All these flights were operated with the aircraft in full NZ livery.

At the start of the 1978 summer schedule the agreement between BA and NZ still had a year to run. However traffic on the LHR-LAX route had grown. To meet the higher passenger demand BA launched a 747 service on the route on Days 1 through 5. Their agreement with NZ was modified so that BA could operate the NZ DC-10s on a 5-times weekly LHR-MIA-LHR and 3-times weekly LHR-YUL-LHR service. Although BA now effectively had two DC-10s on lease from NZ, the aircraft were still rotated with others in the NZ fleet. At weekends the two aircraft were returned to NZ and exchanged for two other aircraft at LAX by operating the Day 6 and 7 LHR-LAX-LHRBA rotations. This redeployment actually increased the BA operation of NZ DC-10s from what was effectively about 1.5aircraft to 2 aircraft.

At the end of the 1978/79 Winter Season the BA / NZ agreement was terminated and almost ten years would pass before BA again operated the DC-10..

So BA's reason for operating both the L-1011 and DC-10 was, like EA's, range - see Reply 6.

EA is the only airline IMO that is suspect with operating both the L-1011 and DC-10. But it goes much further than a favorable lease deal for three -30s to cover long haul flying.

Passing on the Tristar 500 is where EA went wrong. It would have helped EA in the later years, had they standardized on the L-1011. But EA did not benefit from that cost savings.

The problem was EA could not afford an L-1011-500 order to begin with, (circa 1979-80). The critical miscalculation was in the 757 order, which put EA in a debt that they never recovered from. Operationally, the 757 was not a success for EA on the balance sheet either. In hindsight, EA would have been far better off never ordering the 757 and using the funds for the Tristar 500.

Supplemental/replacement 727 capacity could have been accomplished with a more favorable MD-82 order, 2-3 years later. With the DC-9 operations and support, the MD-82s would have fit in fine. And there's no doubt MDC were willing to deal.

Quoting srbmod (Reply 6):Delta's first foray with the DC-10 was as a backup plan in case the L-1011 program was scrapped (Rolls Royce almost going under in 1971 delayed their RB211 engines and at that point, it was too late in the design phase to swap engine manufacturers.). They leased them from UA and returned them once they started to get L-1011s. They acquired them again as part of the merger with Western and retired them within a few years, as the L-1011s were their widebody trijet of choice (until they got MD-11s).

Delta ordered them directed for MDD. They then sold them to UA and leased them back. They were returned to United by 1975.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 23):Delta ordered them directed for MDD. They then sold them to UA and leased them back. They were returned to United by 1975.

That is correct. To add, the aircraft were not sold to UA until the Lockheed's production was up and running.

What is not common knowledge is that the DL DC-10 order included 20 options. These options were to have been exercised if there were another Tristar delay/setback. Furthermore, Lockheed were dangerously close to missing the final SLA/deliverables that would have allowed for a complete cancellation by DL, with virtually no penalty. How history may have been different...

Im not at all trying to be rude, but the suggestion that because an airline operated a DC-10 or L-1011 they went bankrupt is a nonsense correlation with absolutely zero basis in reality. You might be able to make an argument that an airline may have moved into a type that was too big (say, PSA with the L-1011) or expanded too quickly with jumbos or whatever else. But you can create a correlation for just about anything you want to show an airline went bankrupt, the fact that an airline operated a particular type of aircraft may or may not have played a role in bankruptcy. Since every major airline in America has been in bankruptcy and some did operate those types but not all of them did, you can draw a totally fake parallel if you like between ANY aircraft type and financial difficulty, it just makes no difference.